1. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the crime of occupational breach of trust, which inflicts property damage on the principal, is generally deemed to inflict property damage on the principal, i.e., the decrease in the principal’s property value, and includes not only the case of causing a real loss but also the case of causing the risk of causing a real loss of property, and the determination of whether property damage exists should be grasped from an economic point of view, not from a legal point of view.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5742, Mar. 15, 2007). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that, on the grounds of its stated reasoning, since the specific value of the business rights directly or in fact acquired by the victim R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) cannot be assessed for the specific amount of the business rights, it cannot be assessed in detail regarding the acquisition of the shares and business rights owned by the Defendant, but the fact that the amount of losses incurred is recognized.

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted in the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on property damage in the course of occupational breach of trust

B. As to Article 2 of the Reasons for Appeal, in cases where a beneficiary who benefits from the commission of an occupational breach of trust as to the second ground for appeal actively participated in an occupational breach of trust by inducing an executor of the occupational breach of trust or participating in the entire process of such an act of breach of trust, the beneficiary is also recognized as a co-principal with the executor of the occupational breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13801, Feb. 24, 201). The lower court concluded an advisory contract with Defendant D, and acquired his/her shares to the R representative A through Defendant D.